Telangana High Court
Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Jubilee Hills, ... vs Cbi, Hyderabad, Rep. By Standing ... on 7 January, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13332 of 2011
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 under Section 186 Cr.P.C. seeking to discontinue the proceedings in C.C. No.261/SW/2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47 Court, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai.
2. The petitioners submitted that they were shown as A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.2 of 2009 of CBCID, Andhra Pradesh, for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477A of IPC on 09.01.2009. Subsequently, on transfer CBI took-up investigation and filed three charge-sheets. The case was pending on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad as C.C. No.1, 2 and 3 of 2010. A joint trial was commenced and the petitioners were being tried for the alleged offences. The allegations against the petitioners were that ten accused entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy they dishonestly and fraudulently lured the innocent investors into buying shares of Satyam Computers Services Private Limited by publishing false inflated balance sheet projecting healthy picture of the company, caused loss to the investors and created fake customers, generated fake invoices etc.
3. While so, the 2nd respondent lodged complaint on 14.01.2009 against the petitioners and others purportedly to try substantially for the same offences for which proceedings had already been initiated at Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011 Hyderabad. The said complaint was taken on file and was numbered as C.C. No.2/SW/2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47 Court, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai. Incidentally three complaints i.e. C.C.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 at Hyderabad and the C.C. No.261/SW/2009 at Mumbai were filed by the investors of Satyam Computer Services Private Limited. The substances in the two cases were one and the same was relating to books of accounts and other records of the Company. The issues under consideration in C.C. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 at Hyderabad were comprehensive and the said cases arose out of three charge-sheets filed by the CBI. The C.C. at Mumbai arose out of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and the substance of the complaint also formed part of the trial in C.C. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010. If the same offences were tried and decided by two different Courts they would be put to irreparable loss and damage. It was also likely that different and conflicting judgments might be passed on the same set of facts in both the cases thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice and prayed to discontinue the proceedings in C.C. No.261/SW/2009 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted in a similar manner as filed in the petition.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that the petitioners ought to have filed an application under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Mumbai. While so, the accused Nos.31 and 32 in the C.C. at Mumbai, namely M/s.Pricewaterhouse Cooper at Mumbai and New York had filed an application before the High Court of Mumbai seeking to quash the said C.C. and the High Court at Mumbai granted stay of all further proceedings in the C.C. Subsequently, on review of the matter, they had been advised to withdraw the application filed under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and as such they filed a petition to withdraw the application but they were entitled to the relief under Section 186(b) of the Cr.P.C. and prayed to allow the petition.
8. Perused the material on record.
9. The record would disclose that a case was initially registered against the petitioners on 09.01.2009 by CID Police of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one of the investors of M/s.Satyam Computers Services Limited and the same Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011 was registered as Crime No.2 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 477-A & 201 IPC and subsequently on transfer, the CBI took up investigation and filed three charge-sheets, which were numbered as C.C. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. Later the said case was transferred to XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and tried by the said Court and it ended in conviction of the accused persons.
10. Subsequently, another investor of the said Company lodged a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47 Court, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai on 14.01.2009 against the petitioners here along with 30 other accused for the offences under Sections 420, 427, 406, 418, 465, 471, 477 and 120(B) IPC r/w. Section 628 of the Companies Act. The substance of allegations in the said complaint and in the case investigated by the CBI, wherein the charge sheet was filed by them, was one and the same that the accused conspired and abetted each other and committed the above offences against the investors and caused loss to them. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court at Mumbai. Section 210 of Cr.P.C. pertains to the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. It reads as under:
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence:
Dr.GRR,J 5 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011 (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognisance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
11. But the petitioners had withdrawn the said application filed by them. It could be because the private complaint was before the Court in one State and the investigation by CBI is before the Court in another State. Section 186 of Cr.P.C. also deals with such contingency when the matters are pending before two different High Dr.GRR,J 6 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011 Courts. As the petition is filed under Section 186 of Cr.P.C., the said provision is also extracted for a better understating. It reads as under:
"186. High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place: Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided:
(a) If the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;
(b) If the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued."
12. As Section 186(b) Cr.P.C. says that the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced has jurisdiction to enquire into and decide to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the offence before the Court in which the subsequent proceedings were pending, and as the cases in C.C. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010 before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, ended in conviction of the petitioners/accused herein and the C.C. at Mumbai arose out of the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent subsequently, the substance of which forms part of the trial in C.C. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010, it is considered fit to discontinue the proceedings in C.C. No.261/SW/2009 numbered as C.C. No.11 of 2009, pending before Dr.GRR,J 7 CrlP.No.13332 of 2011 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47 Court, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed discontinuing the proceedings in C.C. No.11 of 2009 (261/SW/2009) pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47 Court, Esplanade Courts at Mumbai.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 07, 2022 LSK